Interesting piece here by Peter Gammons, who says that both players and MLB would be better off if kids went to college before turning Pro, and that MLB should help schools financially.
Scott Boras agrees FWIW.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
In addition, Boros will supply wood bats with his name on the logo.
Bob
A number of holes in his plan.
For starters:
--He cites a few exceptional college players who may have succeeded whichever route they took without doing a systematic analysis of the routes taken by everyone who reached MLB within about four or five years of finishing high school.
--At least one of the non-college guys he cites (Mookie Betts) got to MLB before the end of what would have been his junior year of college.
--Why would MLB pay for colleges to develop elite prospects when they already get the sifted product for free?
--It's more expensive to send a kid to college than to pay him to play rookie or low-A ball.
--Lots of college players get hurt, fail to develop, or otherwise flame out. Why would MLB want to pay for the education of so many people who will never play pro ball at any level?
--He seems to assume the 11.7 scholarship limit is mostly the result of a financial constraint, not a Title IX trickle down.
--He ignores the high school grads who don't want to go to college or are academically unprepared for college.
Swampboy posted:A number of holes in his plan.
For starters:
--He cites a few exceptional college players who may have succeeded whichever route they took without doing a systematic analysis of the routes taken by everyone who reached MLB within about four or five years of finishing high school.
--At least one of the non-college guys he cites (Mookie Betts) got to MLB before the end of what would have been his junior year of college.
--Why would MLB pay for colleges to develop elite prospects when they already get the sifted product for free?
--It's more expensive to send a kid to college than to pay him to play rookie or low-A ball.
--Lots of college players get hurt, fail to develop, or otherwise flame out. Why would MLB want to pay for the education of so many people who will never play pro ball at any level?
--He seems to assume the 11.7 scholarship limit is mostly the result of a financial constraint, not a Title IX trickle down.
--He ignores the high school grads who don't want to go to college or are academically unprepared for college.
The 11.7 has nothing to do with Title IX.
Matt13 posted:Swampboy posted:A number of holes in his plan.
For starters:
--He cites a few exceptional college players who may have succeeded whichever route they took without doing a systematic analysis of the routes taken by everyone who reached MLB within about four or five years of finishing high school.
--At least one of the non-college guys he cites (Mookie Betts) got to MLB before the end of what would have been his junior year of college.
--Why would MLB pay for colleges to develop elite prospects when they already get the sifted product for free?
--It's more expensive to send a kid to college than to pay him to play rookie or low-A ball.
--Lots of college players get hurt, fail to develop, or otherwise flame out. Why would MLB want to pay for the education of so many people who will never play pro ball at any level?
--He seems to assume the 11.7 scholarship limit is mostly the result of a financial constraint, not a Title IX trickle down.
--He ignores the high school grads who don't want to go to college or are academically unprepared for college.
The 11.7 has nothing to do with Title IX.
Swamp said, rightly, 11.7 is a "trickle down" from Title IX and not just an independent financial constraint. 11.7 may not be directly MANDATED by Title IX, but increasing that number would have significant Title IX ramifications!
Take it from a former D1 wrestler. Many of us think that Title IX helped seriously diminish our sport.
My own Alma Mater, which had a proud tradition in the sport, no longer fields a team, partly, we all think, because of title IX considerations.
And before you jump all over me, I know its complicated. The late Myles Brand, former president of the NCAA, who I knew through a board that we were on together, used to to deny to me that Title IX had anything to do with the decline of wrestling. But I never bought his arguments.
Title IX is a great thing, but it has had many unintended consequences.
Matt13 posted:The 11.7 has nothing to do with Title IX.
Of course it does.
There's a very careful balance between men's and women's athletic scholarships to make sure both sexes have the same opportunities. If a school wants a D1 football program, it needs to offset the men's scholarships by trimming men's sports or boosting women scholarship opportunities.
It's why the supply-demand equations are so different for scholarships between men and women non-revenue sports. A non-rev men's sport like baseball has zillions of players besieging coaches for opportunities, but many non-rev women coaches have to scour the highways and hedges to fill their rosters. It's why my daughter was "recruited" to be a D1 crew athlete when a coach saw her in the weight room--even though she had never rowed and was already an upperclassman with little hope of developing the necessary technique and timing before graduation.
Baseball dropped from 13.0 to 11.7 when the member schools collectively decided that giving the baseball program a 10% haircut would make it easier to keep their Title IX spreadsheets in balance.
Yes, money is an issue in non-revenue sports. Baseball does lose money just about everywhere. But there's no question that Title IX balancing is a factor, too.
If MLB suddenly offered to fund 3 scholarships at every D1 school, they'd either be turned down or you'd see moves on the other side of the balance sheet to accommodate the additional men's scholarship opportunities.
Maybe colleges should do away with scholarships completely? Or maybe cut back on all of the extravagant travel in youth baseball, so parents can afford to send their kids to college?
Bulldog 19 posted:Maybe colleges should do away with scholarships completely? Or maybe cut back on all of the extravagant travel in youth baseball, so parents can afford to send their kids to college?
It is hard to reconcile the massive sports budgets and facilities with the purported purpose of universities.
Big time college sports exist because the tribal loyalty they promote is indispensable to endowment building, which seems to be the real mission of most universities.
Swampboy posted
"Big time college sports exist because the tribal loyalty they promote is indispensable to endowment building, which seems to be the real mission of most universities."
Exactly!
Swampboy posted:Matt13 posted:The 11.7 has nothing to do with Title IX.
Of course it does.
There's a very careful balance between men's and women's athletic scholarships to make sure both sexes have the same opportunities. If a school wants a D1 football program, it needs to offset the men's scholarships by trimming men's sports or boosting women scholarship opportunities.
It's why the supply-demand equations are so different for scholarships between men and women non-revenue sports. A non-rev men's sport like baseball has zillions of players besieging coaches for opportunities, but many non-rev women coaches have to scour the highways and hedges to fill their rosters. It's why my daughter was "recruited" to be a D1 crew athlete when a coach saw her in the weight room--even though she had never rowed and was already an upperclassman with little hope of developing the necessary technique and timing before graduation.
Baseball dropped from 13.0 to 11.7 when the member schools collectively decided that giving the baseball program a 10% haircut would make it easier to keep their Title IX spreadsheets in balance.
Yes, money is an issue in non-revenue sports. Baseball does lose money just about everywhere. But there's no question that Title IX balancing is a factor, too.
If MLB suddenly offered to fund 3 scholarships at every D1 school, they'd either be turned down or you'd see moves on the other side of the balance sheet to accommodate the additional men's scholarship opportunities.
Exactly! Ten percent of 13 is 1.3, which is how you get to 11.7.
"The game will be far better if the development ladders are from colleges rather than profit-based showcases."
I've enjoyed reading and listening to Peter Gammons for over 25 years. But when he steps out of the realm of games/plays/players and into his self constructed world of "how it should be", his ignorance shines.
If you can get past the extreme east coast bias and the blatant disregard for common sense, Peter Gammons at least has relatively good taste in music. Beyond that and the pure entertainment value, I take little of what he has to say about Baseball seriously. He sure does love the Red Sawx though
Peter Gammons used to be a great sportswriter. Then he became an old fool. He became the place teams and agents ran to place false rumors.
Here's my issue with his idea. Where do you draw the line? Does baseball only fund the five major conferences? It would lock out teams like Coastal from making and winning a CWS. I can't imagine MLB would completely fund D1 baseball. Not enough players are legitimate prospects.
The current system works quite well. Baseball is going through a golden age of talent. Why fix what isn't broken?
I would love to see baseball increase its scholarship numbers. But in doing so how many schools would drop down out of D-1? Would teams like Cal State Fullerton UCSB and Coastal even exist on a national level if they modelled baseball after college basketball? Lets not even tallk about the college football model.
Everyone loves the "Big Dance" but in reality only a select few teams ever have a shot to win the championship? And those are almost exclusively from the traditional power conferences. College Baseball has its problems, for sure. I dont think MLB would give money to colleges as long as they can draft international players at young ages and have success. Baseball Academies in other countries do what MLB wants. Those institutions find and identify pro prospects. They sign and develop those players at young ages.
Much cheaper to do that than to pay for kids to go to college........
The players’ union can and should get involved in finding ways to help their future members and attract young people better prepared for the bus rides and the frightening social development faced by Latin American teenagers in the U.S.
Future members? What do future members have to do with anything related to the player's union? That is simply a line that cannot be crossed or else the system will collapse as a result of MiLB salaries doubling and MLB having to keep track of the resultant accounting footnote.
OK - so maybe collapse is a little over the top.
2017LHPscrewball posted:
The players’ union can and should get involved in finding ways to help their future members and attract young people better prepared for the bus rides and the frightening social development faced by Latin American teenagers in the U.S.
Future members? What do future members have to do with anything related to the player's union? That is simply a line that cannot be crossed or else the system will collapse as a result of MiLB salaries doubling and MLB having to keep track of the resultant accounting footnote.
OK - so maybe collapse is a little over the top.
You mean the union can get involved and help future major leaguers the way they help minor leaguers now?
ROTFLMAO!
Interesting that nobody has picked up on this comment in the article:
"College basketball and football provide more opportunity for players from lower-income families. Thus few college baseball teams have minority players."
People can pick apart Gammons all they want, but that statement is spot on. Let's watch what the rosters of the 8 teams who make it to Omaha look like when the field is set.
I forgot which African American player made a similar point around Jackie Robinson Day, but he laid it out plainly for every family to understand. You are the parent of a multi-sport talented athlete in high school from a low income area. In deciding which offers your son the best opportunity to get a college degree, do you encourage him to focus on football (potential full ride), basketball (potential full ride) or baseball (partial scholarship as low as 25% for athletics and hope for need based aid)? Those kids evaluating their chances to be able to afford to go to college are choosing football and basketball, not baseball. That is a broken system that needs fixing, especially when considering football is a much more dangerous sport for a kid's long-term health and yet it is the preferred choice because of the number of full rides available.
While the article points out some success with players who have thrived as baseball players from the MLB-sponsored urban academies, it is still far too few to make a dent in the declining trend of African American ballplayers in MLB. I'm no socialist, but as a guy who grew up in the elite era for African American players like Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson, and Fergie Jenkins, it does seem like it would make sense for MLB and its player union to create some kind of partnership to take the financial factor out of the decision as to why many low income kids give up their baseball dreams for football and basketball. Maybe MLB puts those kids into a separate draft and retains the rights to the player with the fund covering their college tuition beyond 25% that the school puts up.
Peter Gammons made the comment about blacks because he's an uber Boston Massachusetts, deep blue liberal. Where are all the articles about getting more whites into college and professional basketball? The reality is "who give a bleep?" Either way. I want to see the best talent who wants to be there. I don't care what color their eyes are either. Each kid/family has their own choices to make.
Using sports as an avenue to get a college education is the wrong road to lead a kid down. There's twenty-two times more academic scholarship money than athletic money. This doesn't even include financial aid.
Philadelphia has an RBI program. Who's in it? Mostly white kids from the city (when my son played against them). On the whole black kids think baseball is boring and uncool. In the city basketball is a culture. Hanging at the court is a social event.
Let's see what the rosters look like next year at Omaha. Let's see what the rosters look like next year at March Madness. Who cares! Those players are the most talented whose teams are good enough to get there. What else matters?
Backstop22 posted:Interesting that nobody has picked up on this comment in the article:
"College basketball and football provide more opportunity for players from lower-income families. Thus few college baseball teams have minority players."
People can pick apart Gammons all they want, but that statement is spot on. Let's watch what the rosters of the 8 teams who make it to Omaha look like when the field is set.
I forgot which African American player made a similar point around Jackie Robinson Day, but he laid it out plainly for every family to understand. You are the parent of a multi-sport talented athlete in high school from a low income area. In deciding which offers your son the best opportunity to get a college degree, do you encourage him to focus on football (potential full ride), basketball (potential full ride) or baseball (partial scholarship as low as 25% for athletics and hope for need based aid)? Those kids evaluating their chances to be able to afford to go to college are choosing football and basketball, not baseball. That is a broken system that needs fixing, especially when considering football is a much more dangerous sport for a kid's long-term health and yet it is the preferred choice because of the number of full rides available.
While the article points out some success with players who have thrived as baseball players from the MLB-sponsored urban academies, it is still far too few to make a dent in the declining trend of African American ballplayers in MLB. I'm no socialist, but as a guy who grew up in the elite era for African American players like Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson, and Fergie Jenkins, it does seem like it would make sense for MLB and its player union to create some kind of partnership to take the financial factor out of the decision as to why many low income kids give up their baseball dreams for football and basketball. Maybe MLB puts those kids into a separate draft and retains the rights to the player with the fund covering their college tuition beyond 25% that the school puts up.
Backstop,
Your post was temperate, well reasoned, fair-minded, backed with evidence and compelling. Thus, it has no place here on HSbaseballweb.
Please either lower your game or refrain from posting here in the future.
Thanks.
Why does Title IX assume there are only 2 genders? Why can't students identifying as men play softball?
- Confused in Cincinnati
SultanofSwat posted:Why does Title IX assume there are only 2 genders? Why can't students identifying as men play softball?
- Confused in Cincinnati
What about "they?"
I made a comment about this earlier aimed at pointing out that there are some landmines out there for Title IX.
Given that people actually buy people's arguments that they are transgender and so forth, the door seems wide open to make a mockery of Title IX. But, alas, I guess we've been heading to this place for some time now.
Teaching Elder posted:I made a comment about this earlier aimed at pointing out that there are some landmines out there for Title IX.
Given that people actually buy people's arguments that they are transgender and so forth, the door seems wide open to make a mockery of Title IX. But, alas, I guess we've been heading to this place for some time now.
Might I humbly and respectfully suggest that your obsessive interest in gender identity issues might be better explored in some other corner of the internet rather than a baseball forum?
of course you may.
Seriously, people.
After I started the civility thread and deleted the trans comments in this thread, do you really not understand that this is not the site to argue gender politics?
Baseball--good.
Light humor--good.
Hostile religion and politics jabs--boring and not welcome here.
As I noted, I am no socialist, but I do want to see MLB field the absolute best players in the world. However, RJM completely missed the point about the opportunity among the sports.
It is very simple, football and basketball, by providing full ride scholarships, opens the door to athletes from all races and walks of life to participate in collegiate sports. What it cost a family to send a son to college if offered a scholarship in football or basketball is NOT the deciding factor in what school to go to for these sports.
However, college baseball rarely offers a full ride scholarship and can offer an athletic scholarship as limited as 25%. This leaves families to come up with as much as 75% for the remainder through need or academic merit (I won't even get into the debate about the limited opportunities for some of these kids to score high on ACT/SAT tests that are often used in academic merit decisions). Thus, college baseball is really not a practical consideration for athletes of all races and walks of life. Downplay the option of an athletic scholarship for a college education if you wish, but it may be the only real option for many families.
Clearly it is not just baseball that has this issue in college (i.e. track and field, swimming, etc.) but it is the one college sport that has a mega-billion dollar professional industry that could support it. With college costs spiraling each year, baseball as an option becomes even less so. Would Kenny Lofton and Frank Thomas even consider college baseball now, or would they have become highly successful MLB players had they not had the basketball/football scholarships? And which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Is baseball not cool in the inner city because of the sport or the lack of players/stars in the sport who kids can admire and support?
Pretty sure that Frank Thomas was dual sport, football and baseball. At least for a while.
Your rationale make sense, but I am not positive that the human rationality does. What I mean is that often humans do that which is not rational. That much is universal. Peer pressure, cultural history and such can make people do some irrational things.
African Americans have gravitated toward basketball and to a little lesser degree football. You don't need much to play those games. A milk crate nailed to a tree and a Walmart ball can suffice. A football and someone else to toss with also suffices.
Football has more room for different body types and athletic skills. The fast and shifty smaller kid and the strong and lumbering bigger and kid as well as in between.
Add in the fact that basketball seems to have a cultural connection to the African American community, and sometimes kids get tracked in. A white suburban kid might track towards baseball rather than basketball, even though basketball might offer a full ride down the road.
Just some additional thoughts. Your points are most certainly valid.
Backstop22 posted:As I noted, I am no socialist, but I do want to see MLB field the absolute best players in the world. However, RJM completely missed the point about the opportunity among the sports.
It is very simple, football and basketball, by providing full ride scholarships, opens the door to athletes from all races and walks of life to participate in collegiate sports. What it cost a family to send a son to college if offered a scholarship in football or basketball is NOT the deciding factor in what school to go to for these sports.
However, college baseball rarely offers a full ride scholarship and can offer an athletic scholarship as limited as 25%. This leaves families to come up with as much as 75% for the remainder through need or academic merit (I won't even get into the debate about the limited opportunities for some of these kids to score high on ACT/SAT tests that are often used in academic merit decisions). Thus, college baseball is really not a practical consideration for athletes of all races and walks of life. Downplay the option of an athletic scholarship for a college education if you wish, but it may be the only real option for many families.
Clearly it is not just baseball that has this issue in college (i.e. track and field, swimming, etc.) but it is the one college sport that has a mega-billion dollar professional industry that could support it. With college costs spiraling each year, baseball as an option becomes even less so. Would Kenny Lofton and Frank Thomas even consider college baseball now, or would they have become highly successful MLB players had they not had the basketball/football scholarships? And which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Is baseball not cool in the inner city because of the sport or the lack of players/stars in the sport who kids can admire and support?
I'm not missing the point. Most black kids think baseball is boring and uncool. Did Shane Larkin choose basketball over baseball so he could go to college. On a national baseball broadcast his father stated his son said baseball is boring and uncool. Did Trey Griffey choose football over baseball so he could go to college? Are both of Tori's Hunter's sons playing major college football over baseball so they can go to college?